MEENAKSHI JAIN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff (now in appeal substituted by his daughter Smt. Meenakshi Jain) is directed against the dismissal of Civil Suit No. 2-A of 1980 by the Additional District Judge, Sagar dated 7-6-1985.

(2.) Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are thus :Plaintiff, Rana Kunjar Shamsher Jang Bahadur, filed the instant civil suit, for declaration that, the lease of Nazul Plot No. 7, Block No. 57 situated in Civil Lines, Sagar, initially created by lease dated 30-9-1905, was still subsisting and operative and the same has not come to an end on 1-4-1959 and on any other date. The forfeiture of the lease and demanding the plaintiff to take a fresh lease of plot No. 7/1 shown in the red lines in the map of Nazul Officer, dated 4-12-1963, on payment of premium and fresh enhanced assessment of rent, was unwarranted and illegal as also for recovery of possession, of Plot No. 7/1 and Plot No. 7/2, shown in the map of Nazul Officer attached with the plaint, by ejecting defendants.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in short was that late Raj Kumar Devi Jang Bahadur, a Nepali citizen migrated from Nepal, was the original lessee of the suit land vide lease deed dated 30-8-1905 executed by the State in his favour in respect of Nazul Plot No. 7, Block No. 57 having an area of 4,22,253 sq. ft. equivalent to 9.58 acres with standing bunglow and out-houses, for a period of 30 years on payment of annual rent of Rs. 50.6.4 Pai with a covenent of renewal till the period of 90 years, at the option of the lessee. Rajkumar Devi Jang Bahadur/the lessee sold the bunglow with its premises to his father-in-law, General Prince Rana Khadag Shamsher Jang Bahadur, by a registered sale-deed dated 27-2-1907 and put the vendee in possession thereof. The vendee subsequently died in the year 1922 leaving behind his widow and sons, to succeed to his estate and the suit land. There was inter se exchange of shares between the plaintiff and his brothers and their mother by registered deeds and eventually the plaintiff became the exclusive owner of the suit land and his name was mutated in the revenue records and he continued to be the excluvie lessee acquiring all the rights and obligations of a lessee. In the year 1922-23 settlement of the various lands including the suit land was made by the Revenue Authority. By this settlement the period of lease was extended up to 30-6-1952 later by notification dated 25-11-1957 all the lease of the suit land were renewed up to 31-3-1959. On 17-1-1962 the plaintiff went to deposit the arrears of rent, but the concerned authorities refused to accept the rent saying that as per Government orders the rent cannot be accepted. The plaintiff then made an enquiry as to the reasons for non-acceptance of the rent then he learnt that the State Government had cancelled and forfeited the lease by order dated 6-2-1962 on the ground of non-payment of the rent and breach of condition of the lease, for having transferred portion of the land of the leasehold property to third person. The order of cancellation gave rise to the instant civil suit, which was dismissed which has given rise to this appeal.